be granted, but scarcely any of a very high character, and there is a sense of disappointment in the examination of his productions. Not so with Pope. In his writings we perpetually discover some elegant epigrammatic turn; satire so polished, that it cannot offend; and humour so delicate, that it satisfies the most fastidious. But epitaphs may be considered Pope's speciality. He was celebrated in his own day for this style of composition, and has retained his fame to the present. He has perhaps been overrated in this respect. It is necessary that a few remarks should be made upon epitaphs as a particular form of epigrammatic poetry, and it may be convenient to do so at this point, in order that a just judgment may be formed of his powers as a writer of monumental inscriptions.

The chief intention of an epitaph is to perpetuate the memory and character of the person on whose tomb it is placed, as an example of virtue. For this purpose the name must be given, and such account of his work in life as is requisite for the object in view. The more remarkable have been a man's actions, the less need there is for description; and the fewer the words, the higher the encomium. This was felt by Simonides, when he wrote the epitaph on Adeimantus (Jacobs I. 66, xxxv., translated by Merivale):

Here Adeimantus rests-the same was he

Whose counsels won for Greece the crown of liberty.

But grand simplicity suffices only for the few-for such men as Columbus and Shakespeare, Newton and Wellington. The majority require a longer epitaph to preserve the memory of their existence, their deeds, and their virtues. To keep the just mean between fulsome adulation and insufficient commemoration, constitutes the chief difficulty in the composition of sepulchral memorials. Recourse may again be had to Simonides for an example of an ancient epitaph, which in few and simple lines tells the name of the dead, her history, and her character. It is on Archedice, the daughter of Hippias (Jacobs I. 68, xlvii., translated by Merivale):

Daughter of him who rul'd th' Athenian plains,
This honour'd dust Archedice contains.

Of tyrants, mother, daughter, sister, wife-
Her mind was modest, and unstain'd her life.

Again, an epitaph should not be merely general in praise. The particular characteristics of the dead should be clearly stated, so that the inscription may be suitable to that individual alone on whose tomb it is engraved; otherwise no certain idea of the deceased is gained by the reader, and nothing definite is impressed on the memory. As an example, a Greek epitaph on Euphemius by S. Gregory Nazianzen may be cited (translated by H. S. Boyd):

Euphemius slumbers in this hallow'd ground,
Son of Amphilochus, by all renown'd:
He whom the Graces to the Muses gave,
Tuneful no more, lies mouldering in the grave;
The minstrels came to chaunt the bridal lay,
But swifter Envy bore her prize away.

Here some certain information is given. We learn the man's name and that of his father, that he was beautiful in person, with the soul of a poet, and that he died young upon the eve of marriage.

Now, in what respect do Pope's epitaphs display or fall short of the requirements of this style of composition? First, with regard to the name of the dead. His inscriptions have been satirically called "Epitaphs to be let," because he constantly omits all mention of the person whom he is praising. And, secondly, with regard to distinctive characteristics, the same satire is applicable; for in many cases his epitaphs are so indefinite that they would suit as well other persons as those for whom they are intended. In that on Simon Harcourt, the second fault is very conspicuous, for in eight lines we learn nothing but that he was Pope's friend, a good son, and that his death gave his father and his friend much concern. The first fault is not, however, found; for "this epitaph," says Dr. Johnson, "is principally remarkable for the artful introduction of the name, which is inserted with a peculiar felicity, to which chance must concur with genius, which

xxxiii

no man can hope to attain twice, and which cannot be copied but with servile imitation":

To this sad shrine, whoe'er thou art, draw near,
Here lies the friend most lov'd, the son most dear:
Who ne'er knew joy, but friendship might divide,
Or gave his father grief but when he died.

How vain is reason, eloquence how weak!
If Pope must tell what Harcourt cannot speak.
Oh! let thy once-lov'd friend inscribe thy stone,
And with a father's sorrows mix his own.

Pope's finest epitaph, because the noblest memorial of God-given intellect in the fewest words, is that on Sir Isaac Newton; but most of his monumental inscriptions are on men who were not of sufficient celebrity to be exempt from the necessity of some particulars of their history being recorded on their tombs. It is in these he fails. He either gives no details, or is fulsome in his praise. Of the latter character is the one on Craggs, who was a respectable statesman, but not the all-perfect man described by Pope:

Statesman, yet friend to truth! of soul sincere,

In action faithful, and in honour clear!

Who broke no promise, serv'd no private end,
Who gain'd no title, and who lost no friend;

Ennobled by himself, by all approv'd,

Prais'd, wept, and honour'd by the Muse he lov'd.

To these lines cannot be denied the praise of much beauty; but they have the effect (which should never be the case in an epitaph) of unreality-of bestowing the flattery of affection, rather than the impartial justice of truth.

During the eighteenth century many Epigrammatists of considerable note flourished, a few accepting the Greek type, but the majority the Roman, though in the writings of most of them some pieces may be found which have all the elegance and simplicity of the former, whilst but a small section ventured upon the imitation of the worst specimens of the latter. Aaron Hill and Garrick were men who thoroughly understood epigram-writing. Both abound in humour, especially the latter. Both could be tender, and, throwing aside satire, write with grace of diction and

с

Yet the same author could compose as beautiful an epigram as any of those of an earlier date. So, Palladas could be satirical upon women (Jacobs III. 115, vi., translated by Merivale):

All wives are bad-yet two blest hours they give,
When first they wed, and when they cease to live.

And yet he penned some of the finest and most touching epigrams in the Anthology. Witness the following on Life (Jacobs III. 141, cxxviii., translated by Bland):

Waking, we burst, at each return of morn,
From death's dull fetters and again are born;
No longer ours the moments that have past,
To a new remnant of our lives we haste.

Call not the years thine own that made thee gray,
That left their wrinkles and have fled away;
The past no more shall yield thee ill or good,
Gone to the silent times beyond the flood.

Unfortunately the noblest and purest epigrams of the Greek writers exercised very little influence on the Roman Epigrammatists. Refined simplicity was unsuited to the court of the Cæsars. Flattery and satire were necessary to the satiated palates of the emperors, who set the fashion to their subjects, and thus caused a change to be wrought in the character of the ancient epigram. Many pieces of great beauty are found in the Latin Anthology, but few of these are original; they are translations from the Greek. Of the small number of Latin Epigrammatists of any note Martial is the chief. So great an effect have his writings had on modern authors, that it is of importance to examine the character of his epigrams, and the cause and result of his influence.

Martial wrote for bread, and he consequently formed his style in accordance with the tastes of those, whose patronage was in a pecuniary sense the most valuable. Flattery of the Emperor Domitian and of the wealthy men of Rome, satirical abuse of those who were out of favour at court, and indecent pandering to the vile lusts of an unchaste people, form the staple of his writings. He could, and occasionally did, compose epigrams in a very different

strain, which show how nobly he might have followed in the steps of the Greeks, had he preferred high poetic fame. to mere popular applause. The following, " On Demetrius," is an example of his better style (Book I. 102, translated by Elphinston, with slight alteration):

That hand, to all my labours once so true,

Which I so loved, and which the Caesars knew,
Forsook the dear Demetrius' blooming prime;
Three lustres and four harvests all his time.
That not to Styx a slave he should descend,
When fell contagion urg'd him to his end,
We cheer'd with all our rights the pining boy;
Would that we could give him life to enjoy!
He tasted his reward, his patron blest,
And went a freeman to eternal rest.

But in the fifteen hundred epigrams which Martial has left, the gems are few and far between. They lie hid amid a mass of servility, scurrility, indecency, and puerility. Examples of the worst kind cannot be given, but the following will serve to show the character of a large portion of his writings. The first is a specimen of his gross flattery of Domitian (Book VIII. 54, translated by Elphinston):

Much tho' thou still bestow, and promise more;

Tho' lord of leaders, of thyself, thou be:
The people thee, not for rewards adore;
But the rewards adore for love of thee.

In the following, on Gellia, we see his scurrilous personality (Book I. 34, translated by Hay):

Her father dead!-Alone, no grief she knows;
Th' obedient tear at every visit flows.

No mourner he, who must with praise be fee'd!
But he who mourns in secret, mourns indeed!

Puerility reaches its climax in the two next (Book I. 29, translated by Relph):

Of yesterday's debauch he smells, you say:

'Tis false-Acerra plied it till to-day.

(Book I. 101, translated by Graves):